• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Immigrant - Patrolmen. Interesting concept.

It's so ****ing depressing seeing an entire ethnic group lose its instinct for self-preservation.

The more I learn and the more I think about this, the more I'm convinced the turning point was universal suffrage.

Universal suffrage --> welfare state --> matriarchal, feminized society --> birth rate collapse --> open borders --> oblivion.
 
mibro said:
It's so ****ing depressing seeing an entire ethnic group lose its instinct for self-preservation.

The more I learn and the more I think about this, the more I'm convinced the turning point was universal suffrage.

Universal suffrage --> welfare state --> matriarchal, feminized society --> birth rate collapse --> open borders --> oblivion.
Click to expand...

+1. Only those who contribute to society or have contributed until legitimately disabled or retired should have a vote in anything. If you are on any type of entitlement aside from unemployment for no more than 6 months you do not get a vote.
 
Those officials would serve the constituency better if they turned to making cream pies instead of legislating.

- - - Updated - - -

mibro said:
It's so ****ing depressing seeing an entire ethnic group lose its instinct for self-preservation.

The more I learn and the more I think about this, the more I'm convinced the turning point was universal suffrage.

Universal suffrage --> welfare state --> matriarchal, feminized society --> birth rate collapse --> open borders --> oblivion.
Click to expand...
\

It's Biblical, what's happening. But you'll never understand it if you're not in right standing with God.
 
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that those of you who decry universal suffrage wouldn't be willing to disenfranchise yourselves, say. Just those other people.
 
Goliathan said:
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that those of you who decry universal suffrage wouldn't be willing to disenfranchise yourselves, say. Just those other people.
Click to expand...

Not in my case. I contribute to society so I deserve a vote. Those who are net takers do not deserve a vote (with reasonable exceptions as noted). If I were a net taker I would not feel I have a right to vote.
 
Carl in Ct said:
Not in my case. I contribute to society so I deserve a vote. Those who are net takers do not deserve a vote (with reasonable exceptions as noted). If I were a net taker I would not feel I have a right to vote.
Click to expand...

Used to be only white male landowners over 21 could vote.

So you're a net contributor, you say. Maybe you don't contribute as much as someone with more money or land... does that mean they get more say, or is there a natural cutoff somewhere? The trust fund layabout contributes in taxes, but the stay at home mother taking care of the children that baby-daddy ran out on is not. Who gets the vote here? Or have we rolled back the clock and disenfranchised women completely?

Most importantly, who gets to decide?
 
Goliathan said:
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that those of you who decry universal suffrage wouldn't be willing to disenfranchise yourselves, say. Just those other people.
Click to expand...
Initially, you needed to be a property owner in order to vote. I don't think that's such a bad idea, and I rent. So your guess would be incorrect in my case.
 
ochmude said:
Initially, you needed to be a property owner in order to vote. I don't think that's such a bad idea, and I rent. So your guess would be incorrect in my case.
Click to expand...

What is it about owning land that makes one more qualified to vote than someone else? There's nothing down this road that doesn't end with a plutocracy.
 
Goliathan said:
Used to be only white male landowners over 21 could vote.

So you're a net contributor, you say. Maybe you don't contribute as much as someone with more money or land... does that mean they get more say, or is there a natural cutoff somewhere? The trust fund layabout contributes in taxes, but the stay at home mother taking care of the children that baby-daddy ran out on is not. Who gets the vote here? Or have we rolled back the clock and disenfranchised women completely?

Most importantly, who gets to decide?
Click to expand...

It's moot because it's not something that would be practical to implement because it would be way too hard to make sure the people who should be voting are the only ones voting. People's situations can also change much faster than can be kept up with.

I really don't care why someone is a net taker. If they don't pay in why should they get to decide how the country is run? As far as how much say, it is simple, you contribute you vote, no delineation as to how much you contribute, just that you are not a net taker.

How many trust fund layabouts are there that need to be worried about? Not many. Even still, they at least have a stake in the economy and do contribute financially and are much less likely to vote for the socialist FSA crap that is breaking America.

I did say there would have to be reasonable exceptions to be made but being a baby momma isn't one of them. Sorry, she should have chosen her partner more carefully. Here's an idea, how about folks get married before they start popping out kids. That way at least a court could grant a divorce and award child support. If the deadbeat doesn't pay and the mother has to support the kids herself and needs assistance then perhaps that could be an exception, maybe.

Like I said, I know this is not at all practical but my point is that America is being destroyed by the FSA who don't do anything but take, take, take. My suggestion might not be perfect or warm and fuzzy but it would be better than what is happening now. For Pete's sake the Democratic nominee for president is going to be either a hard core murderous criminal or a self proclaimed communist and either one of them would have a good chance of winning the election. Holy crap, you can't think that is a good thing and it's mostly because they are supported by the FSA.
 
Goliathan said:
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that those of you who decry universal suffrage wouldn't be willing to disenfranchise yourselves, say. Just those other people.
Click to expand...

You're jumping to conclusions.

This is an intrinsic defect of democracy. Universal suffrage eventually leads to everyone sitting in the ruins wondering why the government checks stopped coming. It's happened several, perhaps many times before in human history. There is no mystery to it.
 
Goliathan said:
What is it about owning land that makes one more qualified to vote than someone else? There's nothing down this road that doesn't end with a plutocracy.
Click to expand...
I see it as a simple, objective metric which indicates that someone likely has a vested interest in the economic health of the country. Purchasing land is, in a very literal sense, buying a piece of the country. It's an investment, and people tend to make decisions, to include voting decisions, that grow their investments.

Additionally, limiting voting rights to only property owners would mean that everyone else still has three of the four boxes of liberty at their disposal.
 
Carl in Ct said:
I did say there would have to be reasonable exceptions to be made but being a baby momma isn't one of them. Sorry, she should have chosen her partner more carefully. Here's an idea, how about folks get married before they start popping out kids. That way at least a court could grant a divorce and award child support. If the deadbeat doesn't pay and the mother has to support the kids herself and needs assistance then perhaps that could be an exception, maybe.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Of maybe every woman should be just contrive to be born with the ability to tell the future, and save all this hassle about having to make exceptions to the law.

Do I think that people on the government tit as a way of life is a good thing? Not at all. But human rights are a thing, too, even for women.

ochmude said:
I see it as a simple, objective metric which indicates that someone likely has a vested interest in the economic health of the country. Purchasing land is, in a very literal sense, buying a piece of the country. It's an investment, and people tend to make decisions, to include voting decisions, that grow their investments.

Additionally, limiting voting rights to only property owners would mean that everyone else still has three of the four boxes of liberty at their disposal.
Click to expand...

Sounds great. I'll be posting for sale 1 inch sqaure parcels of my property for $50,000 each. If you want your kids to have any say in how this country is run I suggest you start sending me checks now. Can't afford it? Tough. That's what you get for being poor. You better hope that the rest of the people who bought their right to vote give some thought to you second class citizens and your remaining 3 boxes of liberty, otherwise you're SOL.
 
Goliathan said:
Sounds great. I'll be posting for sale 1 inch sqaure parcels of my property for $50,000 each. If you want your kids to have any say in how this country is run I suggest you start sending me checks now. Can't afford it? Tough. That's what you get for being poor. You better hope that the rest of the people who bought their right to vote give some thought to you second class citizens and your remaining 3 boxes of liberty, otherwise you're SOL.
Click to expand...

There are other possible tests of citizenship in an Athenian democracy. Military service, being a net taxpayer, etc.

This is not about one ethnic group or another, it's about the entire ship sinking under the weight of people who take more out of the system than they put in. The USA's prosperity has built the largest Free Shit Army the world has ever seen. The growth of the FSA is just not sustainable.

Ochmude is an immigration professional on the southern border, so he's in an excellent position to see what's going on.
 
Goliathan said:
Do I think that people on the government tit as a way of life is a good thing? Not at all. But human rights are a thing, too, even for women.
Click to expand...

I totally agree but the pragmatic reality is universal suffrage eventually leads to negative outcomes.

Rhodesia, which was a true Athenian democracy by the way, fed a large part of Sub-Saharan Africa. Zimbabwe can't feed its own citizens.
 
Goliathan said:
Maybe. Of maybe every woman should be just contrive to be born with the ability to tell the future, and save all this hassle about having to make exceptions to the law.

Do I think that people on the government tit as a way of life is a good thing? Not at all. But human rights are a thing, too, even for women.



Sounds great. I'll be posting for sale 1 inch sqaure parcels of my property for $50,000 each. If you want your kids to have any say in how this country is run I suggest you start sending me checks now. Can't afford it? Tough. That's what you get for being poor. You better hope that the rest of the people who bought their right to vote give some thought to you second class citizens and your remaining 3 boxes of liberty, otherwise you're SOL.
Click to expand...

Voting is not a human right, it is a civil right. Not saying civil rights should be taken lightly but they are different. Not asking for women to tell the future. I am asking men and women both to have some self control and either abstain or use birth control before marriage. It's not too much to ask. If they can't do that should they be trusted with a vote?
 
Goliathan said:
What is it about owning land that makes one more qualified to vote than someone else? There's nothing down this road that doesn't end with a plutocracy.
Click to expand...

People who own property pay taxes and have a stake in seeing that the economy and the society around them continues on a prosperous path.

People with no stake in that prosperity(ie:the Free Shit Army) will ALWAYS vote for whomever will give them the largest benefit from the public coffers.

The founders were right in limiting voting to land owners and it should be returned to that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom